Posts by Warren

36

Pedophilia Summary

by LennyinBluemont in

ive read barbaras intro to the pedophile records and thought it might be useful to have a record here on the forum of the most damning and verifiable facts regarding the pedophilia situation.

sort of a summary.

that way we can all have a source to go to and be able to quickly summarize whats criminal about the way the society has used its authority in this matter.

Thanks for the information. Can you tell me the source for the claim of a 3 year waiting period? I've been to the Silent Lambs website and read a letter from the Society that mentions a 20 year waiting period. I've never heard of a 3 year waiting period. An elder guilty of adultery can't be re-appointed for 10 years. I find it hard to believe a child molestor would have less of a penalty. I don't think a person that has molested a child should ever have a position in the congregation.

Best regards,

Warren

25

GB vote on the blood ban.....when? Where was it reported?

by Gill in

could someone please help me with a little information please.. who was it who revealled that the governing body had voted on removing the blood transfusion ban but had not received a two thirds majority?.

i know franz talks about them needing the two thirds maj. to make doctrine but when did they vote on blood ban?.

gill.

Warren

"The whole system is connected with no break from the patient at any time. According to Watchtower rules, this is permitted for a Witness patient."

Since October of 2000 JW's can now have blood completely removed from their body, stored, taken to a lab, treated in some manner, and then transfused back into them so long as it's part of a "current therapy". The November 2006 Kingdom Ministry lists several of these approved procedures.

25

GB vote on the blood ban.....when? Where was it reported?

by Gill in

could someone please help me with a little information please.. who was it who revealled that the governing body had voted on removing the blood transfusion ban but had not received a two thirds majority?.

i know franz talks about them needing the two thirds maj. to make doctrine but when did they vote on blood ban?.

gill.

Warren

According to the October 15, 2000 Watchtower, JW's are allowed to make their own decision concerning procedures/treatments involving the removal/return of their own blood if done within the course of a "current therapy". A "current therapy" has been interpreted as meaning within a single hospital stay but in actual practice these procedures are usually accomplished within the same day.

This is a big change from the policy that was in effect prior to the October 15, 2000 Watchtower. During this time it was forbidden for JW's to have blood that was removed from their body and even briefly stored to be put back into them. Today a JW can have any amount of their blood removed from their body, stored, treated and then transfused back into them several hours later. It is still forbidden to pre-donate one's blood and store it for several weeks prior to surgery.

This change has huge implications.

It is no longer true that having blood injected into the veins is the same as eating it, otherwise JW's are guilty of eating blood.

It is no longer true to say that JW's abstain from transfusions of whole blood, white cells, red cells, plasma or platelets because they accept any and all of these in autologous form so long as it is part of a "current therapy."

Since it can no longer be argued that injecting blood into the veins is the same as eating it or that injecting blood into the veins is NOT abstaining from blood, on what grounds are JW's forbidden from pre-donating their own blood for a future operation or from even taking a transfusion of donor blood?

25

GB vote on the blood ban.....when? Where was it reported?

by Gill in

could someone please help me with a little information please.. who was it who revealled that the governing body had voted on removing the blood transfusion ban but had not received a two thirds majority?.

i know franz talks about them needing the two thirds maj. to make doctrine but when did they vote on blood ban?.

gill.

Warren

Like I said, JW's are already allowed to store their blood but the Watchtower Society thinks they have the right to put a time limit on it. They do so without a shred of scriptural or logical support. They have yet to explain why they think it's okay to store blood a few hours or even days but not weeks.

25

GB vote on the blood ban.....when? Where was it reported?

by Gill in

could someone please help me with a little information please.. who was it who revealled that the governing body had voted on removing the blood transfusion ban but had not received a two thirds majority?.

i know franz talks about them needing the two thirds maj. to make doctrine but when did they vote on blood ban?.

gill.

Warren

Hi Gill,

JW's are already allowed to have their blood stored, just not very long. Blood can be removed, stored, treated in some manner, and then transfused back into the patient if done within a single hospital stay. I have heard of procedures taking up to a day or two. Storing blood a couple of weeks is still forbidden. This is an arbitrary rule imposed by the Watchtower Society. There isn't a shred of scriptural or logical support for a rule that says blood can be stored a few hours but not a few weeks. That JW's are permitted to have blood fractions derived from donated blood but are forbidden from using their own blood is insane!

20

ADVANCE MEDICAL DIRECTIVE sheet on Blood----Check it Out

by Mary in

i'm not sure if this has been posted before, but i acquired this 'points to consider' about what a dub is willing to accept or not accept when it comes to blood.

as per usual, it appears that they've purposely made this very confusing and they're speaking out both sides of their mouth.

on page 1, it seems one of the options is using your own blood: "...during the course of a surgical operation, i accept all medical procedures involving the use of my own blood except...".

Warren

"use of one's own blood "during the course of a surgical operation" implies salvage/capture of blood lost in the course of a surgery that is then routed in an eventually continuous loop back into the circulatory system. The tubes, capture bag/container, and other paraphernalia enabling this can be viewed as a [temporary] extension of the body's circulatory system so that the blood never leaves the living organism."

This is outdated information. Per the October 15, 2001 Watchtower, "use of one's own blood " isn't limited to blood lost during surgery that is put back into the veins via a machine in a continuous loop. JW's are now allowed to have blood completely removed from their body, taken to a lab, stored, treated in some manner and then later transfused back into their veins. The only requirement is that the blood be removed and reused within a single hospital stay. The November 2006 Kingdom Ministry lists several of these approved procedures.

25

GB vote on the blood ban.....when? Where was it reported?

by Gill in

could someone please help me with a little information please.. who was it who revealled that the governing body had voted on removing the blood transfusion ban but had not received a two thirds majority?.

i know franz talks about them needing the two thirds maj. to make doctrine but when did they vote on blood ban?.

gill.

Warren

A new version of the blood card was published in June 2001. The cards were shipped to some congregations and probably a few were actually distributed to members who were baptized over the summer and fall in congregations that ran out of the older version.

A few months later congregations were informed not to distribute these new cards, but rather destroy them. The difference is one line where the older March - 1999 card states "I direct that no blood transfusion (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or blood plasma) be given to me...," the June - 2001 version reads "I direct that no allogeneic blood transfusion (whole blood, red cells, white cells, platelets or blood plasma) be given to me..." So the difference in the cards is the use of the word allogeneic in the June 2001 version.

An "allogeneic" transfusion is one derived from the blood of a different person. The implication here is clear. The Watchtower Society stood at the threshold of permitting autologous whole blood transfusions (transfusions of one's own blood) and for some reason, presently unknown, suddenly shifted and stepped back.

..... Any who are still convinced that the WTS stands solidly behind this policy and are prepared to die defending the policy (or even worse - permit their children to die) have cause to soberly reflect on their support.

This may be one of those situations where the governing body voted to permit Jehovah's Witnesses to use their own blood and put the wheels in motion to change the policy - only to have one member of the body change their mind at the last second and call for a re-vote.

http://www.watchtowerinformationservice.org/bloodcard.htm

15

Got my copies of August and September Awakes today! Funny and sad story.

by hubert in

i was in my truck in town and talking with my sis-in-law whom i met on a side street, and while we were discussing something, she noticed a group of 4 people, 2 women, and two girls, walking up and down the other side of the street, then they got in their car, and stayed there.

so, when she left, i pulled right up next to them, and asked them if they happened to be j.w.'s?

the driver gave me a huge smile, and said, "yes, we are!

Warren

I don't see the WTS changing their position on blood transfusions just because they recognize that blood is an organ and a blood transfusion is essentially an organ transplant. The following quote from the Watchtower shows their thinking on this matter:

"While the Bible specifically forbids consuming blood, there is no Biblical command pointedly forbidding the taking in of other human tissue."

The WTS will simply argue that the Biblical command to "abstain from...blood" rules out taking in blood. Whether or not it's an organ doesn't make any difference.

That a blood transfusion is an organ transplant does refute the old WTS argument that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. The Society evidently recognized this some time ago as they haven't made that argument for a least 15 years. That is no doubt why they have replaced the Biblical terminology of "not eating blood" with "not taking in blood". Their current argument against blood transfusions can be found in the book What Does t he Bible Really Teach. On page 130 it says: "abstaining from blood means not taking it into our bodies at all."

That the WTS no longer claims that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood and has totally replaced the term "eating blood" with "taking in blood" is significant. It indicates to me that they have for many years been aware that blood transfusions are organ transplants and that that demolishes their claim that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. So they have quietly dropped the argument that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood. I therefore doubt that the WTS is planning to rescind their ban on blood transfusions. Instead they have anticipated what the impact of blood transfusions being organ transplants will have on their blood ban and have made adjustments to keep it in place.

80

BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS Twisting a life-affirming law into death

by Terry in

turning a life affirming rule into a death-dealing policy is an amazing accomplishment.

we can thank the watchtower society for a mindset which makes this possible.. i've gone into great detail before about the watchtower blood policy itself.

it is a blatant and deliberate publicity stunt which takes the rather simple prohibitions of the laws of noah for gentiles on murder .

Warren

Leolaia: Since there is no "bloodshed," the rationale of pouring the blood out as compensation for killing one of God's creatures is not in view.

Good point. At no time was Noah prohibited from eating animals that died of themselves and therefore couldn't be drained of blood. Since no human killed them, their blood didn't need to be poured out to show respect for the taking of life. Further backing this up is the fact that Jehovah himself provided the unbled flesh of unslaughtered animals specifically for purposes of eating. God allowed the Israelites to provide "alien residents" and "foreigners" with unbled meat for food as long as the animal was not killed by humans but had been found dead. These animals had died of themselves, probably due to age, disease or accident -- Deut. 14:21

Because "alien residents" and "foreigners" were bound by the Noachian Law, God's provision of giving or selling them unbled animals to eat could not have violated the Noachian Law. Jehovah wouldn't encourage people to violate his law. It is therefore logical to conclude that the Noachian Law applied only to the blood of animals killed for food.

80

BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS Twisting a life-affirming law into death

by Terry in

turning a life affirming rule into a death-dealing policy is an amazing accomplishment.

we can thank the watchtower society for a mindset which makes this possible.. i've gone into great detail before about the watchtower blood policy itself.

it is a blatant and deliberate publicity stunt which takes the rather simple prohibitions of the laws of noah for gentiles on murder .

Warren

Hi TD,

Are you saying that the WTS no longer claims that taking a blood transfusion is the same as eating blood? If so, when did they change this? The Reasoning book on page 71 says that Acts 15:28,29 equates the eating of blood with idolatry and fornication. I thought JW's still understood this scripture as telling them to abstain from eating blood.